Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 49 of 49
  1. #41  
    Treobk, I agree no matter what you do, hard work, dedication, investing and saving your money wisely are good things to practice.

    But past that, some people are just not driven towards accumulating wealth compared to others. It is not automatically a character flaw in someone just because accumulating wealth is not their top priority. Some people work hard at what they do, knowing they will never be rich but they like their job anyway.

    Also rich people are not morally superior to poor people like you are trying to imply here. Dedication, hard work etc. like you say are really great qualities, but stepping on other people to push yourself up the corporate ladder, stabbing people in the back who oppose you, and the other power games that go on, these may get you to be successful, no doubt about that, but we do not have to pretend that they are activities of high morality.

    In the instance of the consumption tax, this would not punish the rich. Under the flat tax, poor people would be punished by paying a higher percentage of their income on taxes than rich people.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 12/18/2004 at 11:08 AM.
  2. #42  
    you are very quick to pull the moral superiority claim out of the bag, cellmatrix.

    I never implied rich people are morally superior, I just said thr poor would do well to try to learn from what successful people have done right, rather than simply resign themselves to remain where they are.
  3. #43  
    .."stepping on other people to push yourself up the corporate ladder, stabbing people in the back who oppose you, and the other power games that go on, these may get you to be successful, no doubt about that, but we do not have to pretend that they are activities of high morality."
    by cellmatrix.


    wow. how ignorant of you to to think that the only way to be successful is to stab people in the back who oppose you or play power games. this is a typical left wing response. you are blind to the whatever foulmouthed or unethical actions undertaken by those of your agenda, but highlight only the resentments you harbor regarding those who oppose YOU. HYPOCRITICAL

    and you try to pretend YOU are practicing activities of high morality by taking your stance? cellmatrix, please, your insinuations make me nauseous. quite short sighted and very transparent.



    seriously, look at how interesting cellmatrix's post is. he tries to say im implying that the rich are morally superior.
    cell does more than imply, he blatantly stereotypes ALL those who are successful as those who step on others or backstab or operate via corruption to gain success. what a foolish comment.
    while I will CERTAINLY say that goes on in the corporate world in SOME cases, i would NOT say that is the ONLY hard and fast way to be successful. I would also CERTAINLY SAY that the same backstabbing behavior goes on among those who are poor as well, cellmatrix.
    its interesting how its ok for YOU to make implications and sweeping attacks about how people who are successful do things, as well as painting (spinning) things to look like implications were made when they weren't.

    the poor, as you say may be poor because they do not work for money, but do what they love. but the poor also may be there due to addictions or crime - which also motivate one to backstab, step on others to get money (stealing money, whatever) lie, cheat - ALL JUST THE SAME - WHATEVER IT TAKES to support their habits and get the means for their drugs. in just the same manner as a rich person who is addicted to drugs would.

    I think you demonstrate a GLARINGLY OBVIOUS double standard here, cellmatrix! you are successful as an academic physician, are you not? are you saying that because you are also successful you have also stepped on others toes, backstabbed, lied, cheated in order to push your way to the top?

    do you really feel that is the ONLY method and formula for success!?
    please, what an absurd, ridiculous implication YOU are making here.


    I think you are implying that the poor are ALL saintly and the underdogs who do nothing wrong. while my heart goes out to those who are working hard to get ahead while being met with tough times, I don't sympathize with those who propogate their own quagmires and lie around doing nothing & expecting everyone else who actually works hard to become educated and establish careers for themselves to pay their way and take care of them.
    everybody's scenario is different - so im not categorizing all poor to be faulted with the same reasons for being impoverished, but quite the same, the poor are just as likely to backstab, step on others toes, lie or cheat as any corporate individual - AND THATS A FACT.
    you see It everyday.
    Last edited by treobk214; 12/18/2004 at 12:37 PM.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    ...Under the flat tax, poor people would be punished by paying a higher percentage of their income on taxes than rich people.
    It seems clear that you are missing something in all this.

    Flat sales tax( consumption tax to some) = an amount paid in taxes on every dollar spent as opposed to income tax which is paid on every dollar earned. Flat indicates the same amount will be charged to all buyers regardless of income.
    Example: Assuming a 10% tax (for my example only, not based in fact) a $100 purchase would net the Government $10. A purchase of $23,681 would net the Government $2368.10. Again this is no way related to income levels.

    Now assuming as some have suggested that basic needs would not be taxed. i.e. food shelter clothing and such, it seems that all would pay an equal percentage in tax.

    As this tax is based on spending and not earning your statement may or may not be true, but it is irrelevant.The taxaton system outlined in this example is equal for all parties involved. The same percentage is paid regardless of income.

    Now the fact that you would complain about inequities favoring those that have higher income indicates to me that you are strongly in favor of adding the responsibility to pay more to those that make more just because they do. This is the classic liberal position of redistribution of wealth through excessive taxation. You seem to think the best way to help "the poor" is to take money from those who have it and give it to those who don't. This punishes those who have money and teaches those who don't that they need not try to better themselves because there will be a handout from the government. As a result the poor will always be poor, because there is no incentive to become anything else and the rich will always look for addditonal ways to "hide" their money to protect it from bloodsucking liberal taxers.

    In short (kinda after the fact I know) a flat percentage tax based on spending is equal regardless of income. That is how its designed, to be oblivious to a person's income.

    I'd also like to point out that "the poor" spend less because they make less and therefore would pay fewer taxes.

    Why is this so difficult to understand?
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    It seems clear that you are missing something in all this.

    Flat sales tax( consumption tax to some) = an amount paid in taxes on every dollar spent as opposed to income tax which is paid on every dollar earned. Flat indicates the same amount will be charged to all buyers regardless of income.
    Example: Assuming a 10% tax (for my example only, not based in fact) a $100 purchase would net the Government $10. A purchase of $23,681 would net the Government $2368.10. Again this is no way related to income levels.

    Now assuming as some have suggested that basic needs would not be taxed. i.e. food shelter clothing and such, it seems that all would pay an equal percentage in tax.

    As this tax is based on spending and not earning your statement may or may not be true, but it is irrelevant.The taxaton system outlined in this example is equal for all parties involved. The same percentage is paid regardless of income.

    Now the fact that you would complain about inequities favoring those that have higher income indicates to me that you are strongly in favor of adding the responsibility to pay more to those that make more just because they do. This is the classic liberal position of redistribution of wealth through excessive taxation. You seem to think the best way to help "the poor" is to take money from those who have it and give it to those who don't. This punishes those who have money and teaches those who don't that they need not try to better themselves because there will be a handout from the government. As a result the poor will always be poor, because there is no incentive to become anything else and the rich will always look for addditonal ways to "hide" their money to protect it from bloodsucking liberal taxers.

    In short (kinda after the fact I know) a flat percentage tax based on spending is equal regardless of income. That is how its designed, to be oblivious to a person's income.

    I'd also like to point out that "the poor" spend less because they make less and therefore would pay fewer taxes.

    Why is this so difficult to understand?

    STRAIGHT to the heart of the matter! nicely done, woof.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    .."stepping on other people to push yourself up the corporate ladder, stabbing people in the back who oppose you, and the other power games that go on, these may get you to be successful, no doubt about that, but we do not have to pretend that they are activities of high morality."
    by cellmatrix.


    wow. how ignorant of you to to think that the only way to be successful is to stab people in the back who oppose you or play power games. this is a typical left wing response. you are blind to the whatever foulmouthed or unethical actions undertaken by those of your agenda, but highlight only the resentments you harbor regarding those who oppose YOU. HYPOCRITICAL

    and you try to pretend YOU are practicing activities of high morality by taking your stance? cellmatrix, please, your insinuations make me nauseous. quite short sighted and very transparent.



    seriously, look at how interesting cellmatrix's post is. he tries to say im implying that the rich are morally superior.
    cell does more than imply, he blatantly stereotypes ALL those who are successful as those who step on others or backstab or operate via corruption to gain success. what a foolish comment.
    while I will CERTAINLY say that goes on in the corporate world in SOME cases, i would NOT say that is the ONLY hard and fast way to be successful. I would also CERTAINLY SAY that the same backstabbing behavior goes on among those who are poor as well, cellmatrix.
    its interesting how its ok for YOU to make implications and sweeping attacks about how people who are successful do things, as well as painting (spinning) things to look like implications were made when they weren't.

    the poor, as you say may be poor because they do not work for money, but do what they love. but the poor also may be there due to addictions or crime - which also motivate one to backstab, step on others to get money (stealing money, whatever) lie, cheat - ALL JUST THE SAME - WHATEVER IT TAKES to support their habits and get the means for their drugs. in just the same manner as a rich person who is addicted to drugs would.

    I think you demonstrate a GLARINGLY OBVIOUS double standard here, cellmatrix! you are successful as an academic physician, are you not? are you saying that because you are also successful you have also stepped on others toes, backstabbed, lied, cheated in order to push your way to the top?

    do you really feel that is the ONLY method and formula for success!?
    please, what an absurd, ridiculous implication YOU are making here.


    I think you are implying that the poor are ALL saintly and the underdogs who do nothing wrong. while my heart goes out to those who are working hard to get ahead while being met with tough times, I don't sympathize with those who propogate their own quagmires and lie around doing nothing & expecting everyone else who actually works hard to become educated and establish careers for themselves to pay their way and take care of them.
    everybody's scenario is different - so im not categorizing all poor to be faulted with the same reasons for being impoverished, but quite the same, the poor are just as likely to backstab, step on others toes, lie or cheat as any corporate individual - AND THATS A FACT.
    you see It everyday.
    I like when you say that both poor and rich can be either good or bad people. That's exactly the point of my last post, I was saying you can't generalize about all rich or poor people being a certain way.

    Maybe I misinterpreted your lasts posts where I thought you were trying to make the point that somehow rich people were better and more worthy than poor people. Now I realize that is not what you were saying and I am glad.

    If that is hypocritical, or if that is being ignorant, or if I am pretending to practice high morality, or if I am making an absurd riduculous implication or a glaringly obvious double standard, or if I am being short sighted or very transparent or foolish, well so be it.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 12/18/2004 at 02:44 PM.
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Now assuming as some have suggested that basic needs would not be taxed. i.e. food shelter clothing and such, it seems that all would pay an equal percentage in tax.
    Yes I agree with you in that if there was some selectivity about what would be taxed, it might be more fair. If you just took what is being used as a sales tax now, it would be quite regressive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Why is this so difficult to understand?
    I am not having difficulty, I am just more swayed by a comprehensive and well put together analysis by the CATO institute rather than yours.

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-289.html
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 12/18/2004 at 02:37 PM.
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Yes I agree with you in that if there was some selectivity about what would be taxed, it might be more fair. If you just took what is being used as a sales tax now, it would be quite regressive.



    I am not having difficulty, I am just more swayed by a comprehensive and well put together analysis by the CATO institute rather than yours.

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-289.html
    That study is just too long and technical for me read thoroughly, but in the lead in it says...

    here are two essential messages of this paper. First, how we rank people--by annual or lifetime income--makes a big difference when we measure the progressivity of a national sales tax. Second, a national sales tax replacement for the income tax is not inherently regressive; it is relatively easy to construct a sales tax that protects the poor from paying any tax and is roughly as progressive as the current income tax. The universal rebate option is a good example of how one could adopt a non-regressive national sales tax.
    Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like the study, perhaps unwittingly, leaves open the possibility of creating a flat tax that is no less regressive then the current system. If so how can one argue that it would not be better than the mess we have now.

    From a purely selfish standpoint, I would be happy to pay a bit more taxes, percentage wise or any other way, if I did not have to deal with filing income tax returns every year. This is especially true if I payed it a few dollars at a time and got something in return with each payment. The psychology of a progressive sales tax would be so much better than what we have now.
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like the study, perhaps unwittingly, leaves open the possibility of creating a flat tax that is no less regressive then the current system.
    The study introduces the idea that a flat tax can be made less regressive, then it goes on to show how to do it in great detail. How is that "unwitting"?

    Anyway, I could go for a non-regressive type of flat tax and I bet many others could too.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions